Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 61 references

Effects of coupling range on the dynamics of swarmalators

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Tightening the coupling range in a one-dimensional swarmalator model produces several new collective states, and most of their stability boundaries are derived exactly.

desk verdict Solid extension of the 1D swarmalator model with real analytic results for p=2, but the captions overstate the analytic coverage of the q-wave boundaries for general p. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14851 v1 pith:IVVSZMT3 submitted 2024-11-22 nlin.AO

Gourab Kumar Sar , Kevin O'Keeffe , Dibakar Ghosh This is my paper · ORCID
classification nlin.AO
keywords swarmalatorscouplingrangesyncdotsq-wavesactivestatephasediagramstabilityanalysisone-dimensionalswarmalatormodel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks what happens when swarmalators—oscillators that also move in space—interact only with neighbors within a finite range rather than with everyone. By inserting a tunable, analytically convenient kernel into the one-dimensional swarmalator model, the authors find that short-range coupling produces a richer repertoire of states: synchronized 'dots' clustered at k ≥ 3 points, fully synchronized 'sync waves,' multi-winding 'q-waves,' and a persistently oscillating active state. For the pulse width p = 2 they derive the stability thresholds for the async, sync-dot, sync-wave, 1-wave, and 2-wave states, and for general p they derive the async boundary (p+1)J + K < 0, K < 0 and confirm that dots and sync wave keep their J, K conditions. These are, the paper argues, the first analytic results on how coupling range affects swarmalator dynamics, opening a route to predicting emergent organization in biological microswimmers and active colloids that communicate locally.

What carries the argument

The central object is the tunable coupling kernel G(x) = ((1 + cos x)/2)^p, a smooth pulse whose width shrinks as p grows, so larger p corresponds to a smaller interaction range. Because this kernel has only finitely many Fourier harmonics (the largest being p), the governing equations close in a finite set of generalized Kuramoto and 'rainbow' order parameters (Q_n, R_n, W_{n±}), which makes linear stability calculations tractable. The paper uses those order parameters to write the equations of motion, evaluate Jacobians at the relevant fixed points, and read off stability regions in the (J, K) plane.

What would settle it

Compute the full Jacobian spectrum for the q = 3 wave (θ = ±3x + C) at p = 2, or for q > 1 at p = 3, and compare its marginal-stability curve in the (J, K) plane with the numerically inferred boundary shown in the paper's bifurcation diagrams; if the curve does not coincide with the sync-dot and async bifurcation lines, the paper's assumption that numerics correctly give the q-wave stability region is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that tuning the coupling range p in the 1D swarmalator model (via the kernel G(x) = ((1 + cos x)/2)^p) changes the phase diagram in a systematic, partly exact way. For p = 2 the paper proves that the async state is linearly stable when 3J + K < 0 and K < 0, that sync dots are stable for J > 0, K > 0 (with k = 1, 2, 3 dots all in the same region), that the sync wave is stable for J < 0, K > 0, and that the 1-wave and 2-wave are stable in regions bounded by J + K > 0, J + 5K > 0 and by 13J + 7K > 0, K < 0, respectively. The maximum winding number of the new states is set by the highest harmonic of the kernel, n_max = p, so lowering the range (larger p) produces q-waves and k-dots with larger q and k, while no qualitatively new states appear beyond p = 2. The paper concludes with a (K, p) phase diagram for J = ±1 whose q-wave boundaries are determined by numerics rather than analysis.

Load-bearing premise

For general p, the stability boundaries of the q-wave states are not derived; the paper assumes that, as in the p = 2 case, q-waves bifurcate from the sync dots and async states, so the (K, p) phase diagrams mark numerical observation as an analytic boundary.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For p = 2, the analytically derived boundaries in the (J, K) plane predict exactly where the async state, the 1-, 2-, and 3-waves, the sync wave, and the sync dots are stable, including the bistability regions where the 1-wave coexists with the sync wave or the 2-wave.
  • For general p, the async state's stability condition becomes (p+1)J + K < 0 and K < 0, so increasing the coupling range (decreasing p) shrinks the async region.
  • The largest accessible winding number for q-waves and the number of sync dots grow with p, because q_max is controlled by the kernel's highest harmonic p.
  • The new states (sync dots with k ≥ 3, sync wave, q-waves with q > 1, and the active state) do not exist in the baseline p = 0 model, so they are direct consequences of finite coupling range.
  • The paper predicts these states may be observable in 1D swarming biological systems such as vinegar eels, where metachronal waves resembling q-waves have already been reported.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the q-wave stability regions continue to be set by bifurcations from sync dots and async states for all p, then a full analytic phase diagram for any p requires only the stability analysis of those two simpler states plus the q-wave existence condition; this is a testable structural conjecture the paper leaves implicit.
  • A natural next step would be to replace the cosine-power kernel with a different compact-support kernel (for instance a box function) and check whether the same states and the same scaling of q_max with range persist, which would show whether the results are kernel-independent or an artifact of the finite-harmonic structure.
  • Because the kernel's finite harmonic content is what makes the analysis tractable, the same order-parameter closure technique could be applied to other finite-harmonic kernels in coupled oscillator networks, suggesting a broader class of analytically tractable range-dependent models.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies a one-dimensional swarmalator model with a tunable coupling-range kernel G(x)=((1+cos x)/2)^p, recovering the original model at p=0. For fixed p=2 it reports new collective states for short-range coupling: sync dots with k>=3, a fully phase-synchronized sync wave, q-waves with winding number q>1, and an active state. It presents linear-stability calculations for the async state, sync dots, sync wave, 1-wave, and 2-wave, and compares these with numerical phase diagrams. For variable p it derives async and sync-wave stability conditions, argues that the maximum winding number qmax grows with p, and displays numerical phase diagrams in the (J,K) and (K,p) planes. The stated goal is to provide the first analytic results on coupling range in swarmalator systems.

Significance. If correct, the p=2 results provide a valuable analytic foothold: threshold conditions such as 3J+K<0 for the async state, J>0,K>0 for sync dots, and J<0,K>0 for the sync wave are parameter-free predictions that are checked against independent simulations, and the simulation code is openly available. The paper is also honest about its failures, explicitly acknowledging that the 3-wave and the general-p q-wave stability boundaries are not derived. However, the analytic coverage is narrower than the abstract and the figure captions claim, and several central linear-stability calculations are only sketched or delegated to an unshown notebook. The new-state phenomenology is interesting, and the p=2 analysis is internally consistent with the numerical phase diagram, but the paper's central claim about analytic derivation must be reframed and the missing derivations supplied.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. IV and Figs. 8-9] The captions of Figs. 8 and 9 state 'Boundaries are calculated analytically,' but this overstates what is demonstrated. Section IV explicitly says: 'Unfortunately, we were unable to find the stability here for general p. Numerics however indicate, like the p = 2 case, they bifurcate from the sync dots and async states, and so in that sense we have their stability regions.' Likewise, in Sec. III.A.5 the 3-wave boundary is left to numerics: 'We were unable to perform the stability analysis in this case as the expressions became humongous.' Since q-waves with q>1 are one of the two new state families highlighted in the abstract, the claim to have derived most threshold boundaries should be qualified, and the figures should visually distinguish analytic from numerically inferred boundaries.
  2. [Sec. IV, qmax argument] There is an inconsistent harmonic-counting argument. The text says 'the largest harmonic nmax in the coupling kernel G(x)... scales linearly with the range nmax = p,' and then immediately argues that a q=5-wave requires S5 to appear in the equations of motion and hence needs p>=4. But Eq. (23)-(24) sum m from 1 to p+1, so the maximum harmonic in the equations of motion is p+1, not p. This is not a cosmetic typo: it determines the stated scaling of qmax for both q-waves and sync dots. Please correct the statement and specify whether qmax=p or qmax=p+1.
  3. [Sec. III.A.1, Eq. (14)] The sync 3-dot eigenvalues are load-bearing for the sync-dot stability region, but the derivation is not in the manuscript. The text says only that 'The eigenvalues are calculated using a Mathematica notebook that we have provided with the references.' No notebook is included in the arXiv submission, and no derivation outline is given. Please include the notebook as supplemental material or provide the essential algebraic steps in an appendix so that Eq. (14) and the resulting region J>0,K>0 can be checked.
  4. [Sec. III.A.6 and Eqs. (22), (30)] The async-state stability is the basis for a large part of the phase diagram, but the calculation is presented only as 'After carrying out the analysis and comparing the Fourier modes, we achieve ...' with no intermediate steps. A reader cannot verify the reduction from the three W_{q±} conditions plus the Z1 condition in Eq. (22) to the final condition 3J+K<0, K<0 (or, for general p, from Eq. (28) to Eq. (30)). Please give the full linearization in an appendix, including the coefficient formulas that justify dropping the individual q conditions in favor of the single inequality.
  5. [Sec. III.A.2 and Sec. IV (sync wave)] The sync-wave stability analysis is asserted through unspecified functions A(N,p) and B(N,p) in Eqs. (15) and (34), with no explicit expressions or derivation. The resulting sign conditions J<0,K>0 are plausible, but because the sync-wave boundary is part of the claimed analytic phase diagram, the manuscript should at least outline how the Jacobian blocks diagonalize and why A and B are positive.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (9)] In the last two terms of the theta equation, the angle argument is written as Phi1+ twice; from Eq. (8) and the general form in Eqs. (23)-(24) these should be Phi2+ and Phi3+, respectively.
  2. [Sec. II, model definition] The sentence 'By going to a suitable frame, we can set omega = nu = 0' should read v = omega = 0; there is no parameter nu in the model.
  3. [Sec. III.A.5] The statement that the 3-wave 'shares the boundary with the async state' should specify which boundary and should explicitly state that this is a numerical observation rather than an analytic result.
  4. [Sec. III, active state] The active state is described qualitatively and illustrated in Fig. 3, but no order parameter or quantitative criterion is defined for it. A precise definition (for example, a threshold on the time variance of Sn+ or R1) would make the phase classification reproducible.
  5. [Figs. 8-9 captions] The phrase 'Boundaries are calculated analytically' should be changed to distinguish the analytically derived boundaries (async, sync dots, sync wave, low-q waves for p=2) from the numerically inferred q-wave boundaries for general p.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: thresholds are computed from the model by linear stability analysis, with only acknowledged numerical gaps.

full rationale

The analytic results in this paper are not circular. The thresholds for async, sync dots, sync wave, 1-wave, and 2-wave are obtained by direct eigenvalue or perturbation calculations from the stated equations (e.g., Eqs. (11)-(17), (22), (28)-(31)), and no parameter is fitted to the quantity being predicted; the analytic boundaries are then checked against independent simulations (Figs. 4 and 6). The only inputs from the authors' prior work are the baseline 1D model and the rainbow order parameters of Ref. [38], which define the setting and the order-parameter vocabulary but do not by themselves imply any of the new stability boundaries. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' own papers, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation: the kernel G(x)=((1+cos x)/2)^p is stated in the model and expanded using the standard binomial identity (27). The paper is also explicit about what is not derived: for p=2, the 3-wave is left to numerics ('We were unable to perform the stability analysis in this case as the expressions became humongous. Numerics revealed that the 3-wave shares the boundary with the async state'); and for general p, q-wave stability is left to numerics ('Unfortunately, we were unable to find the stability here for general p. Numerics however indicate, like the p = 2 case, they bifurcate from the sync dots and async states, and so in that sense we have their stability regions'). These passages are acknowledged limitations, not circular reductions; they do mean that the captions of Figs. 8 and 9 saying 'Boundaries are calculated analytically' overstate the analytic coverage for general-p q-waves and for the p=2 3-wave. That is a claim-width/correctness caveat, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims use no fitted constants: J, K, and p are control parameters. The main assumptions are the mean-field model, the smooth kernel as representative of short-range coupling, and linear stability around symmetric ansatze. No new physical entities are introduced; the new states are configurations of existing variables.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The swarmalator model (Eqs. 1-2) with all-to-all coupling, no noise, and identical kernels in space and phase is the system of interest.
    Taken from prior literature (O'Keeffe et al. 2022); the paper does not justify generality to real microswimmers or colloids.
  • ad hoc to paper The smooth pulse kernel G(x)=((1+cos x)/2)^p is representative of short-range interactions, with the same G for position and phase.
    Chosen because it has a finite Fourier expansion that makes calculations clean; hard-cutoff or exponential kernels may alter boundaries.
  • standard math Async stability is assessed in the thermodynamic limit from the continuity equation with a small perturbation around uniform density.
    Standard kinetic/sync theory; assumes N=infinity and smooth density, whereas simulations use N=200.
  • domain assumption q-wave and sync-dot states are fixed points with equally spaced positions and phases, and their stability is decided by linear Jacobian eigenvalues.
    Linear stability around the perfectly symmetric ansatz; does not exclude nonlinear instabilities or finite-size effects.
  • ad hoc to paper States with winding q require the q-th rainbow order parameter S_q to appear in the equations of motion; equivalently qmax is bounded by the kernel's harmonic content.
    Used to argue no new states appear for p>2 and that qmax grows with p; argued heuristically in Sec. IV, not proven.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Effects of coupling range on the dynamics of swarmalators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IVVSZMT3

@misc{pith2026241114851,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Effects of coupling range on the dynamics of swarmalators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IVVSZMT3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14851}
}
read the original abstract

We study a variant of the one-dimensional swarmalator model where the units' interactions have a controllable length scale or range. We tune the model from the long-range regime, which is well studied, into the short-range regime, which is understudied, and find diverse collective states: sync dots, where the swarmalators arrange themselves into k>1 delta points of perfect synchrony, q-waves, where the swarmalators form spatiotemporal waves with winding number q>1, and an active state where unsteady oscillations are found. We present the phase diagram and derive most of the threshold boundaries analytically. These states may be observable in real-world swarmalator systems with low-range coupling such as biological microswimmers or active colloids.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14851 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. shows this is a pulse with controllable width p where larger p corresponds to narrower widths. We choose such a G(x) because it is nice to work with an￾alytically. For a given range p, it has a finite number of Fourier modes; when you project onto the Fourier ba￾sis the calculation comes out clean. Other kernels such as the box function do not have this convenient feature. To recap, we have a model with three parame… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Active state near the boundary between the 1-wave [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Collective states of the pulse model with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: illustrates the transitions between some of the states by plotting the dependence of Sn± versus K. We take n = 1, 2, 3 and use the convention that Sn+ = max{Sn+, Sn−}. Starting at K = −10, first we see that S1+ (blue crosses), S2+ (red circles), and S3+ (black stars) a…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Visualization of the sync 3-dots. Simulation param [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Bifurcation diagram in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Bistability of the 1-wave with the sync wave and 2- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Locations in the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Locations in the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Table I shows S1+ = S1− = S2+ = S2− = S3+ = S3− = R1 = 1

    Sync dots First we study the stability of the sync dots with a single cluster, i.e., the sync 1-dot. Table I shows S1+ = S1− = S2+ = S2− = S3+ = S3− = R1 = 1. We only look at the order parameters that appear in Eqs. (8)- (9). The positions and phases are all synchronized and we get xi = θi = c, a constant that can be taken as 0 without loss of generality....

    work page

  2. [2]

    Order param- eters takes values R1 = 1, and Sn+ = Sn− = 0 for n = 1 , 2, 3

    Sync wave Here the phases are completely synchronized, but the positions are distributed along the ring. Order param- eters takes values R1 = 1, and Sn+ = Sn− = 0 for n = 1 , 2, 3. The state is represented by the fixed point (xi, θi) = ( c1 + 2πi/N, c2). Setting c1, c2 to zero, the calculation of the eigenvalues of the Jacobian M at this fixed point yield...

    work page

  3. [3]

    1-wave 1-wave corresponds to θ = ±x + C, for some constant C (determined by the initial conditions). If we choose the ‘+’ve sign, then order parameters become S1− = 1 and S1+ = S2+ = S2− = S3+ = S3− = R1 = 0 (choice of the ‘−’ sign just alters the values of S1+ and S1− while leaving the analysis unaffected). The fixed point for this state is ( xi, θi) = (...

    work page

  4. [4]

    This corresponds to the fixed points (xi, θi) = (c1 + 2πi/N, c2 + 2∗ 2πi/N)

    2-wave Here, we have S2+ = 1 and S1+ = S1− = S2− = S3+ = S3− = R1 = 0. This corresponds to the fixed points (xi, θi) = (c1 + 2πi/N, c2 + 2∗ 2πi/N). We calcu- late the eigenvalues of M λ =    0 1 8 (−2J − K) 1 8 −J ± p J(J + 2K) 1 32 −2J ± p J(4J + 3K) 1 32 −2J − K ± √ 4J 2 + 68J K+ K 2 1 128 −11J − K ± √ 121J 2 + 1174J K+ K 2 1 12...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Taking the ‘−’ve sign (without loss of generality), we getS3+ = 1 and S1+ = S1− = S2+ = S2− = S3− = R1 = 0

    3-wave Solutions are now of the form θ = ±3x + C. Taking the ‘−’ve sign (without loss of generality), we getS3+ = 1 and S1+ = S1− = S2+ = S2− = S3− = R1 = 0. Fixed point is of the form (xi, θi) = (c1+2πi/N, c2+3∗2πi/N). We were unable to perform the stability analysis in this case as the expressions became humongous. Numerics revealed that the 3-wave shar...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Async state We study the async state in the thermodynamic limit, N → ∞. The density function satisfies the continuity equation ∂ρ ∂t + ∇ ·(vρ) = 0, (18) where ρ(x, θ, t) denotes the probability that a swarmala- tor is at position x with its phase θ at time t, and the velocity v = ( vx, vθ) is the right hand side of Eqs. (8)- (9). Consider a perturbation a...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Sungar, J

    N. Sungar, J. Sharpe, L. Ijzerman, and J.-W. Barotta, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.15228 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    sin m(xj − xi) + (θj − θi) + sin m(xj − xi) − (θj − θi) # , (23) ˙θi = K N NX j=1

    Now, 1-wave is bistable with 2-wave (green triangles). In both the cases, the probability of 1-wave is much lesser than the other one. The probability is almost zero at the beginning and only increases asJ or K tends to zero. The other noticeable thing from Fig. 7(b) is that, aroundK = 0, the probabilities do not add up to 1. This indicates the existence ...

    work page

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    K. P. O’Keeffe, H. Hong, and S. H. Strogatz, Nature Communications 8, 1504 (2017)

    2017

  2. [10]

    Adorj´ ani, A

    B. Adorj´ ani, A. Lib´ al, C. Reichhardt, and C. Reichhardt, 9 Physical Review E 109, 024607 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    Hrabec, V

    A. Hrabec, V. Kˇ riˇ z´ akov´ a, S. Pizzini, J. Sampaio, A. Thi- aville, S. Rohart, and J. Vogel, Physical Review Letters 120, 227204 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    Aihara, T

    I. Aihara, T. Mizumoto, T. Otsuka, H. Awano, K. Nagira, H. G. Okuno, and K. Aihara, Scientific Reports 4, 3891 (2014)

    2014

  5. [13]

    Riedl, I

    M. Riedl, I. Mayer, J. Merrin, M. Sixt, and B. Hof, Na- ture Communications 14, 5633 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    Riedl and F

    M. Riedl and F. Romano (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    G. K. Sar, S. N. Chowdhury, M. Perc, and D. Ghosh, New Journal of Physics 24, 043004 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Barcis, M

    A. Barcis, M. Barcis, and C. Bettstetter, in 2019 In- ternational Symposium on Multi-Robot and Multi-Agent Systems (MRS) (IEEE, 2019), pp. 98–104

    2019

  9. [17]

    Barcis and C

    A. Barcis and C. Bettstetter, IEEE Access 8, 218752 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    S.-Y. Ha, J. Jung, J. Kim, J. Park, and X. Zhang, Kinetic & Related Models 14, 429 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    S.-Y. Ha, J. Jung, J. Kim, J. Park, and X. Zhang, Math- ematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences 29, 2225 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    Z. Gong, J. Zhou, and M. Huang, International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos 34, 2450129 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    Degond, A

    P. Degond, A. Diez, and A. Walczak, Analysis and Ap- plications 20, 1215 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    N. Blum, A. Li, K. O’Keeffe, and O. Kogan, Physical Review E 109, 014205 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    G. K. Sar, D. Ghosh, and K. O’Keeffe, Physical Review E 107, 024215 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    J. U. Liz´ arraga and M. A. de Aguiar, Physical Review E 108, 024212 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Schilcher, J

    U. Schilcher, J. F. Schmidt, A. Vogell, and C. Bettstet- ter, in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Auto- nomic Computing and Self-Organizing Systems (ACSOS) (IEEE, 2021), pp. 90–99

    2021

  18. [26]

    B. Hao, M. Zhong, and K. O’Keeffe, Physical Review E 108, 064214 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    H. Hong, K. Yeo, and H. K. Lee, Physical Review E 104, 044214 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    O’Keeffe and H

    K. O’Keeffe and H. Hong, Physical Review E105, 064208 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    L. D. Smith, SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Sys- tems 23, 1133 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    M. S. Anwar, G. K. Sar, M. Perc, and D. Ghosh, Com- munications Physics 7, 59 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    S. J. Kongni, V. Nguefoue, T. Njougouo, P. Louodop, F. F. Ferreira, R. Tchitnga, and H. A. Cerdeira, Physical Review E 108, 034303 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    G. K. Sar, K. O’Keeffe, and D. Ghosh, Chaos: An In- terdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 33, 111103 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    G. K. Sar, D. Ghosh, and K. O’Keeffe, Physical Review E 109, 044603 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    J. U. Lizarraga and M. A. de Aguiar, Chaos: An In- terdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 30, 053112 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    M. S. Anwar, D. Ghosh, and K. O’Keeffe, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.05342 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    H. Hong, K. P. O’Keeffe, J. S. Lee, and H. Park, Physical Review Research 5, 023105 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    Degond and A

    P. Degond and A. Diez, Acta Applicandae Mathematicae 188, 18 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    Ghosh, S

    S. Ghosh, S. Pal, G. K. Sar, and D. Ghosh, Physical Review E 109, 054205 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    S. Yoon, K. O’Keeffe, J. Mendes, and A. Goltsev, Phys- ical Review Letters 129, 208002 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    It has facilitated several exact analyses of swarmalators [18, 20, 23, 38–41]

    (it turns it into Kuramoto-like model which means we can use techniques from sync studies to attack it). It has facilitated several exact analyses of swarmalators [18, 20, 23, 38–41]. Here it allows us to analytically de- termine the critical coupling range at which various co...

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Ghosh, G

    S. Ghosh, G. K. Sar, S. Majhi, and D. Ghosh, Physical Review E 108, 034217 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    G. K. Sar and D. Ghosh, Europhysics Letters 139, 53001 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    O’Keeffe and C

    K. O’Keeffe and C. Bettstetter, in Micro-and Nanotech- nology Sensors, Systems, and Applications XI (Inter- national Society for Optics and Photonics, 2019), vol. 10982, p. 109822E

    2019

  36. [44]

    H. K. Lee, K. Yeo, and H. Hong, Chaos: An Interdisci- plinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 31, 033134 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    Ceron, K

    S. Ceron, K. O’Keeffe, and K. Petersen, arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.06439 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  38. [46]

    O’Keeffe, G

    K. O’Keeffe, G. K. Sar, M. S. Anwar, J. U. Liz´ arraga, M. A. de Aguiar, and D. Ghosh, arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10178 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    O’Keeffe, S

    K. O’Keeffe, S. Ceron, and K. Petersen, Physical Review E 105, 014211 (2022)

    2022

  40. [48]

    O’Keeffe, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.02975 (2024)

    K. O’Keeffe, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.02975 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    K. P. O’Keeffe, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.18011 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Kuramoto, in International Symposium on Mathe- matical Problems in Theoretical Physics(Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1975), pp

    Y. Kuramoto, in International Symposium on Mathe- matical Problems in Theoretical Physics(Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1975), pp. 420–422

    1975

  43. [51]

    Note1, the constant depends on the initial conditions and the same is true for all other such constants that appear in the fixed points

  44. [52]

    But, in reality, we get either S1− = S2+ = 1 or S1+ = S2− = 1

    Note2, note that, in Table I, S1+ = S2+ = 1 as we as- signed the maximum values to the ‘+’ signs there. But, in reality, we get either S1− = S2+ = 1 or S1+ = S2− = 1

  45. [53]

    Note3, in theory they could be bistable with the sync dots or async state of course, but numerics indicate this is not the case

  46. [54]

    Quillen, A

    A. Quillen, A. Peshkov, E. Wright, and S. McGaffigan, Physical Review E 104, 014412 (2021)

    2021

  47. [55]

    Quillen, A

    A. Quillen, A. Peshkov, B. Chakrabarti, N. Skerrett, S. McGaffigan, and R. Zapiach, Physical Review E 106, 064401 (2022)

    2022

  48. [56]

    Ketzetzi, M

    S. Ketzetzi, M. Rinaldin, P. Dr¨ oge, J. d. Graaf, and D. J. Kraft, Nature Communications 13, 1 (2022)

    2022

  49. [57]

    Note4, https://github.com/Khev/swarmalators/tree/master/1D/on- ring/local-coupling

  50. [58]

    the constant depends on the initial conditions and the same is true for all other such constants that appear in the fixed points

  51. [59]

    But, in reality, we get either S1− = S2+ = 1 or S1+ = S2− = 1

    Note that, in Table I, S1+ = S2+ = 1 as we assigned the maximum values to the ‘+’ signs there. But, in reality, we get either S1− = S2+ = 1 or S1+ = S2− = 1

  52. [60]

    In theory they could be bistable with the sync dots or async state of course, but numerics indicate this is not the case

  53. [61]

    https://github.com/Khev/swarmalators/tree/master/1D/on- ring/local-coupling

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.